As a member of the Cosă in good standing, I have the statutory right to ask questions and receive answers from the incumbent Government. To wit, I would like to ask the Seneschal, the Distain, or another appropriate Minister about rogue, contemptuous, or inciteful acts of provinces or their agents.

Does the Government agree or disagree with the following statement? "Provincial agents who act directly in contravention of the Organic Law ought to be tried in criminal court for such acts."

Does the Government agree or disagree with the following statement? "It is necessary for the rule of law, and for the public safety of Talossa, that those who act in contravention of the Organic Law must be suffer tangible punishment."

Does the Government agree or disagree with the following statement? "Any citizen of Talossa who affirmatively, actively, concertedly, overtly, or undoubtedly incites, causes, or is concerned in secession, rebellion, insurrection, war, treason, sedition, or similar acts must be prosecuted forthwith by the Ministry of Justice."

Does the Government agree or disagree with the following statement? "Any law, constitutional proviso, decree, order, or other part or manner of the law, which is fundamentally or constructively inOrganic, must be disparaged publicly by the Minister of Justice."

Would the Government pursue a declaratory judgement from the Corts of Talossa, in order to strike and invalidate any law, constitutional proviso, decree, order, or other part or manner of the law, which is fundamentally or constructively inOrganic, if the Government became aware of such a law, proviso, et cetera?

As a member of the Cosă in good standing, I have the statutory right to ask questions and receive answers from the incumbent Government. To wit, I would like to ask the Seneschal, the Distain, or another appropriate Minister about the Government's program, or in any case some statutory provision in El Lexhatx, with respect to fraud by immigrants into Talossa.

Does the Government agree or disagree with the following statement? "A citizen of Talossa who lies about his or her identity, especially with the knowing and willful purpose to deceive other citizens of such identity, has committed felonious fraud."

Does the Government agree or disagree with the following statement? "An immigrant who wishes to naturalize as a citizen of Talossa ought to produce bona fida, indisputable, verifiable, and in-good-faith identification of his or her identity, to exclude any and all pseudonyms, such as stage names or pen names."

Does the Government agree or disagree with the following statement? "Any citizen of Talossa, who is found to have deceived the Ministry of Immigration about his or her identity during the immigration process, or who is found to have deceived the Government in any manner about his or her identity during or after the immigration process, has committed felonious fraud and, therefore, ought to lose his or her citizenship of Talossa."

(To clarify: I am not referring to Talossa-ized names post-immigration. I am not referring to such names as "Açafat del Val" or the like. I am referring squarely to the concept that Talossa wants to avoid any and all repeats of the ESB Affair.)

As a member of the Cosă in good standing, I have the statutory right to ask questions and receive answers from the incumbent Government. To wit, I would like to ask the Seneschal, the Distain, or another appropriate Minister about the "delete" function on Wittenberg.

Is there a due process in place, so that Talossan citizens do not have to fear random, capricious, or otherwise inexplicable disappearance of their public discourse on Wittenberg?

If so, where can it be found?

If not, will the Government institute (or at least advocate for) such a prescribed due process?

As a member of the Cosă in good standing, I have the statutory right to ask questions and receive answers from the incumbent Government. To wit, I would like to ask the Distain about the below-pasted statement:

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on March 30, 2023, 09:59:11 AMThere's been some discussion about best practices for writing a bill, and that makes sense.  We should try to have a rough consensus.  On the last Witt, I had a guide which was used for a long time.  But a posted list of suggested guidelines might be better than the pamphlet we previously used.

Currently, my suggested list would include these principles:

• A bill should include an italicized list of reasons for its passage and any necessary context, presented as a list of statements and with each such statement beginning with "WHEREAS"
• A bill should present its proposed changes clearly.  Each proposed change should begin with a bolded word: "THEREFORE" for the first change, and "FURTHERMORE" for each change after that.
• The bill should say exactly what the Ziu would be doing if the bill was passed.  Typically this entails amending el Lexhatx or the Organic Law, and so the specific location of the change should be stated.
• If existing law is being altered, the current text should be included with the bill, for easy comparison with the proposed changes.
• The Ziu may only make changes which fall within its ennumerated powers, found at Org.VII.3.
• Laws may mandate specific actions, bestow specific powers, or authorize optional actions.
• It is permissible, but generally discouraged, to add recommendations or advice in the law.  This should be done only when deemed necessary for effective implementation of other provisions.
• The use of the quoting function can be helpful to set out blocks of text in a readable way.

An example bill might look like this:

WHEREAS the sandwich is the ideal food, and

WHEREAS it is agreed by all that we need to endorse it,

THEREFORE the whatever section of el Lexhatx is modified to include this additional provision:

Upon which Organic or statutory authority does the Distain rely in order to recommend anything to members of the Ziu?

Addendum to the above: If there is no such Organic or statutory authority, then upon which self-appointed moral high horse does the Distain sit in order to recommend anything to the members of the Ziu?

(I note to the benefit of the Distain and the public that there is NOTHING in El Lexhatx or the Organic Law which precludes leading questions. That is to say, as I understand the law, the Distain is required to answer my questions as posed, which is not necessarily the same thing as accepting its premise.)

To continue: Upon which precedent or standing law does the Distain rely, in order to suggest that the Ziu (a) lacks parliamentary supremacy as the legislative branch and (b) must therefore discourage "recommendations or advice in the law"?

Does the Distain believe that the Ziu ought to be bound by his recommendations in any way, shape, manner, or form?

Does the Distain believe that any bill, resolution, or other object of legislation, which ignores his recommendations, is thereby poor, lacking, unbecoming, or otherwise unsuitable?

Does the Distain believe that the Talossan Government is "for the people", and if so, does he believe furthermore that any agent of the Government ought ever to be in the business of telling legislators what to do or not to do?

Final question: Does the Distain even know the formal, technical, or artisan term for what he calls "a list of statements ... beginning with 'WHEREAS'"?

I would like to clarify: this future conversation about Breneir Tzaracomprada's abuses of power is certainly not limited to that subject matter! We intend also to bond, establish camaraderie, and build a common Talossanity together over our mutual distaste of corrupt politicians. Our goal is to nourish a sense of decorum and trust among each other.

A joyous April to my fellow Talossans!

As a member of the Cosă in good standing, I have the statutory right to ask questions and receive answers from the incumbent Government. To wit, I would like to ask the Seneschal about the below-pasted "Talossa Talks" intiative:

Quote from: Breneir Tzaracomprada on April 04, 2023, 12:29:27 PM

PRÜMĂ MINISTRÀ

---

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
4 April 2023

As Talossans we persevere to ensure a sense of trust and decorum here on Wittenberg. But the question I keep coming back to is whether we really know one another. For those who answer in the negative I want to help change that. As a part of a Seneschal's Initiative (funded only by the Seneschal himself) I am personally making available $120USD for Talossans who want to have a chat over a cup of coffee, tea, beer, or other beverage.

To participate all you need to do is report back on your chat via Wittenberg (which Talossan did you chat with? In person or online? Anything interesting in your chat worthy of sharing?). Within two weeks of notification, I will then send, electronically, each of you $6 USD for a cup of a beverage of your choice. And if you tape your chat and share then I will double it...$12 USD for you both!

Let's have fun getting to know one another!

Breneir
Seneschal

Would the Seneschal agree or disagree with the following statement? "The deletion of citizens' posts on Wittenberg, without due process, is not an act of trust or decorum."

Would the Seneschal agree or disagree with the following statement? "An open government uses funds from publicly raised revenue – i.e., the Treasury – and condemns any citizen who attempts to induce behavior in others by bribery."

Also, I am planning to meet a few citizens over a few beers, in order to discuss the time that a Breneir Tzaracomprada – who I believe is indeed the Seneschal at this time – deleted my posts from Wittenberg, refused to apologize for it, and scapegoated anyone but himself for his abuse of power. Will the Seneschal reimburse me and the other participants the promised $6, if we provide proof of this conversation?

Final question: Is the Seneschal prepared to defend his initiative in court when he fails to reimburse the $6, despite his contractual offer and my acceptance of the terms?

Quote from: Mic'haglh Autófil, MoFA on May 01, 2022, 11:50:45 PM

Quote from: Dr. Txec Róibeard dal Nordselvă, Esq., O.SPM, SMM on May 01, 2022, 11:24:26 PMI am interpreting to my best effort the laws as written, as I will continue to do as long as I am allowed to continue in office as Secretary of State. This is by far not an easy job and I hope you all believe that I am doing this with grace, dignity, and fairness.

For what it's worth, I think you're doing a good job. Sometimes people legislate themselves into knots, it happens (that's not a dig at AdV, for reference)

Shocking as it may seem, I think that our current SoS goes above and beyond; I respect the hell out of him, and he deserves all of our gratitude and appreciation. He has done, does, and is doing a fantastic job as SoS*.

If our only complaint is that the SoS is trying to abide by the law, then that sounds like a compliment! Wouldn't we rather have an SoS like this, than someone who doesn't check the laws?

Sheesh.

*(Notwithstanding my complaint that he could or should have foreseen a moderator deleting posts.)

I'm happy to be corrected, and happier that someone read it.

For the sake of my ego, this exact current predicament wouldn't exist under my old writing. Moreover, even if it could, I reiterate that the issue is less the Organic section, and more the lack of candidates.

Why or how are people here all up in arms over "having" to pick two, and not mad that they have only two choices?! Surely we should expect more parties than just the TNC and FreeDems, right?

The very fact that people are whining proves how necessary the requirement is. The whole purpose of ranked-choice voting is upturned if MCs can just pop in and say "my party and no one else, kyhxbye". To have an actual... ranked-choice election... you have to... rank your choices. It doesn't seem unreasonable to require two picks. It's two. A whopping two. It's not three or four of five.

Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on May 01, 2022, 11:43:33 PM

Quote from: Açafat del Val on May 01, 2022, 11:41:12 PM
is there even a process in place for nomination?

Yes.

Seems like the PdR leader is nominated implicitly, then! They never nominated anyone, so their leader should be assumed to be on the ballot.

Sounds to me, then, like we're reaping what we sowed when we didn't bother to consider the larger implications of piecemeal amendments.

Although I would argue that the PdR can't nominate anyone but its own leader. I mean, is there even a process in place for nomination? As far as I'm concerned, each party implicitly nominates itself.

Unless the PdR wishes unequivocally to announce that it refuses to nominate its own leader as a candidate for Seneschal, then I consider my vote valid.

Don't worry, though: the Talossan judiciary is a joke, so I won't be filing any lawsuit ;)

Actually, I am a little angry that neither I nor anyone else thought of this:

We don't have to vote for just the FreeDems and TNC.

My first preference is Ian.
My second preference is the PdR.

They have a party leader and representation in the Cosa; I should be permitted Organically to vote for the PdR's leader.

I oppose any removal of the requirement. The issue is not requiring MCs to pick two preferences; it's MCs not having more than two choices for Seneschal.

This is a solution looking for a problem.

Not that being snide helps my attempt to persuade, but I'm cranky and, to speak politely, disillusioned.

The requirement that each ballot contain at least two distinct preferences was written in conjunction within a larger amendment. Piecemeal tweaks, as Talossa is so fond of doing, create more problems; I would advise that amendments to this one thing come up amendments of other things.

As for the text itself: I would beg that MZs attempt to look past the immediacy of today and try to imagine a wider picture. Constitutions are not meant to and shouldn't bother to contemplate every possible outcome; they are necessarily broad and vague. Accordingly, what are the risks of making no requirement?

Someone hinted at it before me: ranked-choice methods are bupkis without a certain number of preferences. What's the point of ranked-choice if everyone picks just one candidate? Ballots are then immediately exhausted.

I had to make a compromise between no requirement and the burdensome Australian approach. Two preferences seemed fair, especially when it's hard to predict that only two parties have put up leaders. I mean, shame on me for thinking that Talossa might have more than two Seneschal candidates at a time.

For what it's worth, when I wrote the section at issue, it came with another clause that allowed MZs to vote for more than just the political leaders. That was changed one or two Cosas ago, where now the only candidates are the party leaders themselves.

It's almost like Talossa should stop amending one paragraph at a time. Perhaps then we wouldn't be shocked when one section after another becomes broken.

Quote from: Dr. Txec Róibeard dal Nordselvă, Esq., O.SPM, SMM on May 01, 2022, 11:11:09 PM

Quote from: Açafat del Val on May 01, 2022, 10:13:27 PM
I hereby cast my single vote for Ian Plätschisch. I have no second choice.

A second choice must be listed please.

Apologies. Done.

I vote thusly...

1. Ian Plätschisch
2. Brenier Tzaracompadra

(My original vote excluded a second preference, but on account that doing so may invalidate my entire ballot, I have included now a second preference.)